Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Bishop Hill has turned a most unepiscopal purple at the suggestion that
his decade long obsession with sporting goods amounts to an obsession,
denying that hockey sticks are really his stock in trade.

The Bish and his acolytes
seem positively snitful at the notion that McIntyre's discomfiture at
AGU meetings stems from the high frequency with which non-oilpatch
geophysicists fall down laughing when the mining statistician's mouth
moves.

And so begins a classic back and forth. The best was the first, in reply to somebunny noticing that Steve McIntyre was somewhat displeased with goings on at the AGU this year Russell pointed out that

something or things at the conference seemed to have irked him.

Being gainsaid at every turn by climate scientists who know what they are
talking about is bound to ruin any mining statistician's day.

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might be getting their pants in a twist
about the technical differences between sock puppets, social
engineering, pseudonyms and hacking, but there are more interesting
things buried here under a complete lack of self awareness.

Someone,
let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the
intellectual output of others, we will not speculate as to motive, at
least not here, wonders why he is shunned by those he threatens and
their colleagues.

Make no mistake about it, Steve is right when he sensed a hardening
of opinion against the Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU clearly based on
an increasing understanding that the climate system is entering
dangerous areas driven by human forcings and disgust at the tactics of
those trying to stop any actions to deal with the problem.

but in his usual careful parse, Steve replied

Steve: I don’t understand your complaint against
Climate Audit. If there’s anything inaccurate in this or any other post,
I ask that people inform me of the inaccuracy. In addition, I seldom
comment on policy and most of my rare comments on policy seem relatively
uncontroversial to me (or even provoke criticism from “skeptics”). If
you can point to any statement of mine about policy that provokes the
sort of “disgust” that you allege, I’d appreciate it if you would
provide me a link so that I can reflect on the point. It seems to me
that people who are seriously concerned about the future should be the
ones who take the lead in opposing bad ethics and poor statistical and
scientific practices among their fellow travellers.

Nor did I comment that I “sensed a hardening of opinion against the
Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU”. I primarily noted Gleick’s
surprising return to AGU. I hadn’t associated AGU’s welcome to Gleick as
being connected to AGU attitudes to Climate Audit and sincerely hope
that this is not the case.

Someone, let us not say whom, conducting a smash and grab action to access the intellectual output of others

Yes, I’m curious about this as well. As too often, Rabett is opaque
to the point of incoherency. Is Rabett concerned about people accessing
pdf’s of academic articles from online sources without purchasing the
articles from the journals? Many authors regularly post such articles
on their websites, but one can download them without having to “smash
and grab”. I’m puzzled. Or is Rabett concerned about authors being
asked to archive data?

uses the coercive power of the state to force other
people to give him, gratis, the fruits of their labor. He does not
produce himself — he uses the data of others, repackaged and
sensationalized, to fuel the hit count of his blog.

and then, of course you wonder about the high regard you are held in
by those you have cost time and effort complying for your rent demands.

But let us return to the hardening part

Nor did I comment that I “sensed a hardening of opinion against the
Climate Audit/Watts crowd at AGU”.

Of course, "Nor did I comment"has to be followed by (I leave it to the rest of you to gather from the tone of my entire post which moans that Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and Peter Gleick played major roles at the conference and idle comments in the post such as

AGU used to be about physical sciences. Its erosion of standards was
well exemplified by its inclusion of Stephan Lewandowsky, a social
psychologist from western Australia, as co-convenor of two sessions.

and

So for anyone wanting a break from Mannian statistics, Gleickian ethics,
especially as synthesized by Lewandowsky, this year’s AGU conference
was a bad one.

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might have thunk that Steve had sensed a change in the AGU and its members attitude towards Steve and friends.

Public acceptance
of the scientific consensus regarding climate change has eroded and
misinformation designed to confuse the public is rapidly proliferating.
Those issues, combined with an increase of politically motivated attacks
on climate scientists and their research, have led to a place where
ideology can trump scientific consensus as the foundation for developing
policy solutions. The scientific community has been, thus far,
unprepared to respond effectively to these developments. However, as a
scientific society whose members engage in climate science research, and
one whose organizational mission and vision are centered on the
concepts of science for the benefit of humanity and ensuring a
sustainable future, the American Geophysical Union can, and should, play
an important role in reversing this trend.

To that end, in 2011,
AGU convened a Leadership Summit on Climate Science Communication, in
which presidents, executive directors, and senior public policy staff
from 17 scientific organizations engaged with experts in the social
sciences regarding effective communication of climate science and with
practitioners from agriculture, energy, and the military. The
discussions focused on three key issues: the environment of climate
science communication; public understanding of climate change; and the
perspectives of consumers of climate science–based information who work
with specific audiences. Participants diagnosed previous challenges and
failings, enumerated the key constituencies that need to be effectively
engaged, and identified the critical role played by cultural
cognition—the influence of group values, particularly around equality
and authority, individualism, and community; and the perceptions of
risk.

Since that meeting, AGU has consistently worked to identify
and explore ways that it, and its members, and improve the
effectiveness of their communication with the public about climate
change. This presentation will focus on the insights AGU has gathered,
as well as make the case for why this is an important role for
scientific societies, such as AGU, to play.

The Q&A after her talk was hard hitting, the As more than the very respectful Qs. Still, perhaps the most interesting point in that CA thread was a comment by Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute

I noticed that some previous comments ask why Heartland hasn’t
“pressed charges” against Peter Gleick for his crimes. On behalf of The
Heartland Institute, let me explain why.

Only the government can “press charges” in the U.S., and so far it
has chosen not to bring criminal charges against Gleick. Heartland
retained counsel experienced in federal criminal prosecutions and who
have dealt often with prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago.
Heartland’s counsel thoroughly researched the case and met repeatedly
with prosecutors, asking them to prosecute Gleick for the serious
violations of federal law he committed.

Despite our efforts and despite Gleick having confessed to at least
one crime, our appeal for prosecution was dismissed. We are told the
government has no obligation to prosecute crimes even when the culprit
confesses and the victim asks for prosecution. This is called
“prosecutorial discretion.” We’re hoping the new US attorney in Chicago,
along with prosecutors in Washington DC will take a new look at the
case. We are holding off any civil suit until and in case a criminal
prosecution is launched. In any event, we plan to release the
presentation we compiled on Peter Gleick soon to let the general public
decide if justice has been served.

that the government isn't going to do something is not surprising. In fact Obama's record of prosecuting white collar crime is far worse than the Bush administration, and Mashey would probably agree with me on that point.

Thankyou Mr. Bunny. After attempting the read Climate Audit ( I'm a Canadian and it makes me so ashamed) I gave up. The text gave me no information to the point that I judged it merely intellectually jealous ranting.

Without your sensitive whiskers I would have missed another round of nonsense.

Over 20, 000 plus scientists attended the 2012 AGU-- yes alarmists every one of them (/sarc). Now Nigel Persaud (aka McIntyre) and his loyal followers like Bishy are all in a tizz. Let me wipe away my crocodile tears ;)

Does Nigel, Steve, know that the paleo students at AGU were laughing at him after he walked by? He is clueless. You see, those students actually work very hard to undertake their science, and they know their shit. They are not freeloaders and rent seekers like old Nigel (dang I did it again, I mean Steve McIntyre) and his bitter, jealous and twisted fans are.

Steve McIntyre stalked Mann almost the entire AGU conference. His sad attempt to intimidate Mann in this juvenile and pathetic way is laughable. No wonder our Nigel/steve is so tired-- being bitter and jealous, trying to keep up with the younger and fitter and brainier Mann and repeatedly failing must be exhausting for poor old Nigel, I mean Steve.

The scientists are laughing at Steve, and rightly so, for he is a pathetic and twisted individual.....amongst other thinks ;)

So to show my support for those students, here is me LOL at you Steve McIntyre :o)

Lakely and crew are planning on releasing a presentation on Gleick shortly? Given the major flaws I've documented at scholarsandrogues.com in the stylistic analysis and the digital forensics analysis that Heartland requested, I think my cup may runneth over!

LOL mate. The UEA emails were stolen long before the Heartland affair. The drafts of AR4 were leaked long before same. Climate scientists received death rates and hate mail long before. Deniers have been on this crusade long before the Heartland affair. But thanks for the veiled threat and poor attempt to misplace responsibility for present and future illegal actions by deniers.

The data are out there, but the deniers just don't have the chops to do anything useful with it most of the time ;)

Stop projecting the inanity and weakness of your BS argument on Eli ;) Go and whine at Nigel and Bishy please, your BS will be accepted unequivocally there for sure.

Eli, maybe one insticmday I will understand why you spend as much energy as you do with your obtuse prose. To be sure I will not hold my breadth. I appeal to your academic credentials to ask you a simple question - Do you uncritically endorse the statistical methods used by Mann in MBH 99, and secondly, do you approve of the methodology of Lewandowsky in the well-discussed paper?

Gosh, calm down dear old chap, and please do us all a favour and try to formulate a coherent and factual argument without misrepresenting me or engaging in distortion as you did at 4:10. What you are doing just isn`t cricket old chap.

FYI, the UEA hack was illegal. Nigel Persaud regularly makes in libelous statements against climate scientists (from safe distance of course thereby avoiding prosecution). Making death threats is also frowned upon by the police, but the authorities have not released the identity of the individuals making the threats. Tim Ball and Corcoran being sued for libel-- they unwisely did not libel a climate scientist from a safe distance. There are probably more fer sure, but there is only so much time available to harvest carrots.

Eli has obviously struck a nerve with the deniers and rent seekers. Way to go Eli! :)

Eli Willard and Russell rather enjoy setting little problems for the bunnies to solve.

As to MBH98, it was the first multiproxy study, the statistical method was adequate but not ideal, many pioneering papers do something like that. Certainly McIntyre and McKitrick were misleading (being of a charitable bent) in their claims about the tendency to find hockey sticks in noise. For a full discussion of this see Nick Stokes

But eli, surely you remember this, "Ian Jolliffe then commented at Tamino's :

"It has recently come to my notice that on the following website, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/ .. , my views have been misrepresented, and I would therefore like to correct any wrong impression that has been given.

An apology from the person who wrote the page would be nice.

In reacting to Wegman’s criticism of ‘decentred’ PCA, the author says that Wegman is ‘just plain wrong’ and goes on to say ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you *should* take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA, author of a seminal book on the subject. He takes an interesting look at the centering issue in this presentation.’ It is flattering to be recognised as a world expert, and I’d like to think that the final sentence is true, though only ‘toy’ examples were given. However there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’."

He goes on to say: "It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. "

Ian Jolliffe also wrote to Steve McIntyre, to let him know that McIntyre and McKitrick's had, unlike Tamino, correctly understood his presentation:

"You have accurately reflected my views there, but I guess it’s better to have it ‘from the horse’s mouth’."

So Tamino claims that one of the "world's foremost experts" on PCA supported Tamino's claim that dentered PCA is appropriate. Said expert them turns up to let everyone know that Tamino has misrepresented him, that the idea that he has endorsed decentered PDA is "plain wrong", and asks for an apology for Tamino.

This must have been embarassing for Tamino, and is maybe the reason that he's deleted these pages from the website. (Your links are to a web archive).

When you're ( slightly ) wrong , you should publish a corrigendum which is what MBH did . At the time I pointed out the Nature squib to my fellow republikaninchens as a proud example of self-correcting science in action ( Another postumous medal due Maxine Clarke).

This wannabe one man presbytry will be out of a job if his audience ever realizes he's been trying to pass off a dodgy data splice fizzle, doused at the outset by 's bucket brigade, into the five alarm fire of the century.

the contrarian focus on palaeoclimatology is predictable- it's an astute thing to attack because the science is soft- nobody wants to bet the farm on an admixture of sporadic histories, mismatched proxies and anecdotal data , but we all must go the science wars with the data we've got, which naturally engenders some comedy of manners.

"my view is that the chance of all the climate models having got things completely wrong and that by 2030 the Earth is cooler than in 1950 is of the same order of magnitude as the chance that the USA will decide that independence was a bad idea and ask to be taken back as a British colony by the same date" -- Ian Joliffe at Tamino's.

Suppose your task is to determine the average height of men in the town and you decide 10,000 is an adequate sample. You use a measuring tape marked only in inches, and after adding up the heights and dividing by 10,000, you find the average height is 6', +/- .5i.

Now, it is discovered that you missed one, and only had 999.Every statistician in the world would agree you have not computed the average correctly. Any good statistician would also think that the actual data mattered, also, and that in this case, the result was well within the error bars, UNLESS the missing man was actually Godzilla.

McIntyre got 10,000 men, but selected the 100 tallest and then sampled them. A 100:1 cherry-pick is usually called an example of falsification/fabrication (depending on local terminology). Of course, McI was also way off on the auto-correlation/persistence.

People told Wegman to redo the calculations the *right* way (i.e., centered) to see if the "wrong" decentered choice *actually* made any significant difference *given the actual data.* It didn't, as Wahl and Ammann had already showed.

Anyway, McI (&Wegman) always tried to cast this as "decentering is wrong" but nobody could tell if it made a difference without redoing the analysis.

You see Mashey, and also you Eli, the problem is that you, as scientists, know what you say or more importantly don't say, hurts not only your credibility but of climate scientists in general. You not only stay silent about bad science, you defend it. Eli, Mashey is expected to behave like this, but you! Some would say, not me for sure, that you skipped the Lewandowsky question. There is still hope for you Eli, not Mashey of course.

If the Heartland wants Dr. Gleick prosecuted, they might have to turn their computers over to law enforcement experts. Denialists are always saying that we are entitled to see what is in other people's computers. Still, the not-very-sincere Joe Bast may not want the authorities to see what is tucked away in his computer. Somehow, DeSmogBlog seems pretty sure about that. Here is what they say about the supposedly fabricated document:

"Joe Bast says the document is a fake, a statement we take with a grain of salt given the Heartland Institute’s previous dissembling on the subject of climate change and its discredited position on the safety of second hand smoke. In the circumstances, if the Heartland Institute can offer any specific criticism of the Climate Strategy or any evidence that it was faked and not, actually, written on Joe Bast’s laptop, printed out and scanned, we would be pleased to consider that evidence."---DeSmogblog (2-16-12)

I emailed the Chicago Media Coordinator for the FBI, Special Agent Royden "Ross" Rice, and asked him to send me the FBI's most recent statement about this case. Here is the FBI's most recent statement (2-24-12), which was sent to me on 3-5-12 and used with Mr. Rice's permission:

"Representatives from the Heartland Institute contacted our office, earlier this week, to report what they felt was a criminal act committed against their organization.

We are currently working with the Institute and the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago to determine if the incident in question was a possible violation of criminal law, which would be under our jurisdiction."

Jim Lakely doesn't say in his Jan 7, 2013 comment if Heartland cooperated with the FBI by giving their computers/Joe Bast's laptop to the FBI to study for evidence about what computer the allegedly fabricated memo was written on.

Maybe someone should ask if the FBI was able to examine Joe Bast's laptop/Heartland computers.

QUOTE:Other experts share my opinion that there is sufficient probable cause to follow through with a thorough in-depth federal investigation into the Gleick ’Fakegate’ case to see how far the 'post-normal' climate cancer has spread. Certainly, Peter Gleick should be offered a plea bargain deal if he rats out the other racketeers.

Apologists for climate criminals will not be curbed until the leaders of this 'post normal' academic cult are jailed. But whether the Obama government has the stomach to follow through and permit such prosecutions remains to be seen, as Chicago FBI agent, Ross Rice hinted:

“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”

UNQUOTE

Actually, the Canadian denialist Steve McIntyre (2-28-12) wrote these words which "legal analyst" John O'Sullivan falsely attributes to FBI Special Agent Royden "Ross" Rice:

QUOTEWhether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor of John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343. [Near the end of the post.] http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/28/18-u-s-c-1343/

I think that McIntyre should make it clear that John O'Sullivan is putting his (McIntyre's) speculation into the mouth of FBI Agent Rice.

John O'Sullivan has refused to correct this misattribution, which gives the speculation of McIntyre the authority of an FBI spokesman. He claims he is a legal expert, but he deliberately puts McIntyre's words into the mouth of an FBI spokesman.

"Legal expert" John O'Sullivan seems really demented not to know that an FBI spokesman would NEVER allege that politics played a role in the decision to charge Gleick with a crime:

“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”

McIntyre is like the former high school footballer forever trying to relive -- and get others to relive (and relive {and relive [and relive...]}) his "glory play" from years ago*

Al Bundy from "Married With Children" comes to mind (I'll leave it to the readers's imagination who the "children" refer to)

~@:>*even though he actually stepped out of bounds when he scored the "touchdown" by assuming "noise" with unrealistically long persistence and cherrypicking his top 1% results to "prove" that the Mann technique performed on what McIntyre (and Wegman**) called "red noise" necessarily yields hockey sticks.

**As Deep Climate showed, Wegman never even did an analysis of the data himself. He literally just "replayed" McIntyre's results by opening up McIntyre's "cherrypick.txt" file (he didn't name it that of course, but could have)

"'I ask you again, as a scientist (put aside your political leanings), are you critical of MBH99 stats"

Who cares? That particular form of PCA hasn't been used in any of the subsequent work, and substituting standard PCA for Mann's novel approach doesn't change the results of MBH99, either.

On the other hand, McIntyre generating 10000 sequences, then filtering out 100 sequences that showed the most "hockey stick"-like results and claiming that this was an artifact of Mann's methodology (vs. being an artifact of McIntyre's cherry picking) was simply dishonest.

And Wegman having claimed to have done an independent analysis, while actually simply running McIntyre's code on McIntyre's cherry-picked dataset, was equally dishonest.

So on the one hand you have a somewhat unusual statistical treatment that doesn't materially affect the results of a paper (MBH99).

And on the other hand you have blatant cherrypicking and misrepresentation (the cherry-picked 1% of sequences showing a postitive hockeystick showed an upturn only about 10% as steep as the MBH results, but McI plotted the results using two different Y axes in order to make his cherry-picked results look as significant as MBH99).

And you castigate the former, irrelevant, novel statistical treatment while buying into McI's bullshit.

Still, Steve missed the most interesting talk about this point in one of those Lewandowsky convened symposia

HoHoHoHo. Nigel was probably stalking Mann or Gleick on Monday, hence the absence.

True story from the AGU trenches:

1) A pal was close to Nigel during John Cook's session on Tuesday afternoon.

2) Persaud showed up after Zeke's talk (tsk tsk) and left after mt's. No prizes for guessing who talked in between.

3) The Nige was seen typing on his laptop. While other scientists and students would take copious notes with actual content of the talks, the statistician (sic) preferred to type in his searing insights, such as "disorganized", "clumsy", "not fluent" etc.

4) Said pal also noticed the Canadian looking at his travel plans. Either mt's talk was that boring for the Nige to surf onto aircanada.com., or Persaud wanted to show some solidarity with the Texan Canuck.

5) When the session's third speaker departed, guess who else left? How much more transparent could Nige be about his sad obsession?

Well Eli, you win. I give up my appeal to you to answer a simple question. Oh -I know your links and many more. I was just probing to test your scientific integrity. I had an inkling you might be different. Guess not. By

This is the problem with trolls, they have insatiable appetites and no matter how ridiculous their claims and arguments are shown to be, they just keep coming back for more attention and keep on twisting people's responses to them.

I see at least one "asteroid" heading our way...but Nigel Persaud and his cronies want to try and convince us to not bother considering the possibility of a huge problem. They would rather argue about personalities and faux scandals.

I'm a little worried about anonytroll. He seems to be spiraling down ever deeper into depths of incoherence. His rather unhealthy obsession with 15 year old papers and their authors seems to have him thinking everyone is as stupid as he is. Sad, really. But, hey, since I don't know who the poor bloke is...pass the popcorn.

"Really? Who was prosecuted and convicted in court of this illegal act?"

Only in Halfwitland could a corpse be found tied to a chair with their fingernails pulled out, a hood over their head, their throat slit; but it couldn't be murder because a murderer hadn't been found to prosecute and convict.

I do take issue with something said in this post, he refers to Nigel Persaud/McIntyre and the giddy Bishop as "auditors". They are not legitimate auditors, not even remotely so. The post should have been titled "Annoying the chummers" ;)

Since Wegman and PCA have been mentioned, I bring yet another Wegman carrot. Wegman had an interesting habit of speaking differently to audiences unlikely to contain experts. For instance, see 03/21/07 talk in events @ AUC, Wegman on 'reanalysis'. The abstract was this.Bunnies might want to read that carefully, especially:

'Their methodology incorrectly used a principal component-like analysis. When the PCA methodology is correctly used, the hockey stick essentially disappears ( i.e. the rapid rise from 1850 disappears. The change in mean global temperature is approximate .7 degrees centigrade over 150 years. We discuss this and other statistical faults with the paleoclimate reconstructions.'

Evidence of the crime is still being collected. Once AGW turns out to be a real problem after all (surprise!), costing lots of money and lives, people like Nigel and his fellow chummers will have a big, big problem.

Perhaps you, full-of-crap-denier-lemming, could be on the list as well, but a lawyer would probably recommend: best you remain anonymous, lest you incriminate yourself. Anything you say, can and will be used against you.

Really? Who was prosecuted and convicted in court of this illegal act?

The police force investigating the CRU hack has stated unequivocally that it was a criminal act. The notion that something cannot be considered a crime unless someone has been convicted for it is somewhat odd - AFAIK they never caught the people who broke into my house and stole my car but I'm pretty sure it was still a criminal act.

OTOH, if you have a case where someone openly admits their actions yet the authorities decline to take any action then claims of criminal activity are much more open to question.

Really? Who was prosecuted and convicted in court of this illegal act?

Ah, the unfailing logical fallatio of the denialatus.

By this reasoning the Ripper murders were not crimes.

Nigel Persaud was convicted of libel?

If Nigel Persaud were to try libeling Mann now, I'd say that Nige would be spending a lot of time on the 'phone with Tim Ball, swapping notes.

"Making death threats is also frowned upon by the police, but the authorities have not released the identity of the individuals making the threats."

Because there has not been any death threats.

Really? How do you know this? Have you a source monitoring the communications of every climate investigator?

For your information (although I doubt that it would stick or even slow down on the short journey in one ear and out the other) I've been personally threatened with grievous bodily harm by a denialist on a non-climate forum where I post under a different name. The threat was repeated several times over several days, and it was sufficiently serious that I had to cancel attendance at a national meeting where the denialist said he was going to find me. One of his comments was to the effect that he would not lose sleep if his beating rendered me comatose or worse. And all I was doing was pointing out the evidence supporting real science, and debunking denialist clap-trap.

The moderator deleted the posts when they were brought to his attention. Unfortunately that was before I learned the habit of archiving, otherwise I would have frozen them on at archive.org for posterity.

More generally, death threats have been taken sufficiently on the evidence supplied by Australian researchers that their institutions have had to instigate safety measures to exclude unfettered public access.

Don't know how this post snuck under my radar. I'm a habitual consumer of the Rabett droppings :-)

Delighted to see that more and more somebunnies are bringing up the excellent work by Deep Climate every time some AGW denier brings up McI's 'critique' of that seminal 15-year old MBH paper and/or the Wegman report. The point really needs to be driven home time and again that McIntyre is nothing more than a serial cheater. His archived data and R code for MM05 is on-line for all to behold. Yep, he way overcooked the 'red noise' persistence and then did a 1% cherry pick. But the AGW deniers see nothing wrong with that. What hypocritical arseclowns they are.

I doubt any one of the deniers has read through Deep Climate's analysis, at least not for comprehension. Having to come to grips with it would cause their little brains to explode, even with the cognitive dissonance armour they must carry around. I'll bet it weighs a lot.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.